here by the representatives of the shipbuilding combine and the armorplate trust and promptly report a bill without any regard to the wishes of the trusts.

Mr. FREEGARD. Mr. Chairman, as I have come a thousand miles especially to be present to-day, I will be glad if you will give me an opportunity to be heard for a few minutes.

Mr. CALDWELL. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we hear the gentleman to-day for ten minutes.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Freegard.

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN FREEGARD, of ST. LOUIS, MO.

Mr. Chairman, it was because that I realize the importance of this proposed measure that I again appear before you. We realize that any interference with the hours of labor by the Government, under any conditions, is undesirable. Whether the working day should be ten hours, or nine hours, or eight hours, or any other number of hours, is a matter, we respectfully submit, which the Government should not meddle with.

There are conditions peculiar to every business, and no two businesses have the same conditions. In every business there are conditions which regulate the number of hours the men must work. Take, for instance, the time when the Democratic convention was held in St. Louis. During that month you gentlemen know as well as I do that there is an immense amount of pressure brought to bear upon the printing business. To expect us to dispose of that work with a limit of eight hours for a day's work would be an unreasonable proposition. Necessity would require, probably, that the men should work. all night.

Of course we are not saying that the men should only be paid the same amount for twelve hours' work they are for eight hours. In the printing business they are well remunerated for extra labor. We pay them a price for a certain number of hours, and half price extra for the time they work after that limit up to a certain time, and beyond that we pay them two prices. But what we ask is that you should not limit us in the number of hours the men may work.

The proposers of this bill say plainly that their purpose is to have this enacted into law simply as an entering wedge for bringing about a universal eight-hour day, and for prescribing a limit of the working day throughout the whole country. That is the purpose of the bill. They say this will be a benefit to the country. I beg to take issue with them on that statement. The eloquent declamation we heard from a member of the House this morning, of course, appealed to our feelings and to our judgment, but I must say I do not think it appealed to our

reason.

In the first place the Government, when it employs labor and gives out a contract, puts itself in the position of any other contractor, and we know that any contractor in giving out a contract for work wants to have that contract completed at the smallest possible expense to himself. If the Government is a sane organization, doing its business upon business principles, it would have in mind the fact that it is to the interest of its constituents, the people of this country, that they should have those contracts fulfilled for the lowest possible sum under ordinary competitive business principles. Do you mean to say, gen

tlemen, that you can go before the country and say that you have enacted a bill which will make the product you supply to the country cost 40 per cent more to the country than it would under ordinary circumstances, and that the country will not raise a kick about it?

You have now a bill before you which proposes to do that very thing, to make the expense of all the products which the country buys about 20 per cent more than they are at the present time. I do not think you dare say that you can go before the country, unblushingly, and ask their franchises with that bill in your hands. You are asked to do this thing in the interest of two million workingmen. What about all the other millions of workingmen who constitute the people of this country? What about the other people who have to pay the taxes? I think, frankly, that if you should enact this bill into law in ten years the workingman himself would be asking you for its abrogation.

We see to-day that the increased cost of production has increased the cost of supplies. We find that in Chicago labor has increased from 10 to 15 per cent and that supplies have increased 40 per cent. What has made that increase? It is simply because of the increased cost of production. The more you put up the price of labor the more you are going to put up the price of supplies. You may say that the workingman was never so well off as he is to-day. That may be true, but it is simply because they have had long years of prosperity in this country. We hope for it and we want it to continue, but the more obstacles you put in the way of the business of the country and of enterprising activity the worse it will be for the laboring man and the more difficult it will be for them to maintain the very happy condition that they enjoy at the present time.

With regard to printing: The gentleman stated that certain purchasers of printing had stipulated that certain conditions should be required, and that a label should be put upon that printing which indicated it was done under an eight-hour day. Permit me to say it did not indicate anything of the kind, because the printers in the country are working on a nine-hour day.

Mr. MARTIN. I do not think I said it was an eight-hour day. I said it represented liberal conditions.

Mr. FREEGARD. The only point I want to make in regard to this matter is that it is unfair to the individual, as such, and in many States it has been declared contrary to the constitutional right of the individual, and has been abrogated. It may be that municipalities still demand it. It may be that city councils still ask for it, but if they do, they ask for it in defiance of the rights of the citizen. I, as a man who runs a printing office and pay taxes, have just as much right to do the public printing, if I do it upon the terms proposed, as any other man; and no restriction upon the kind of men I employ or upon the number of hours they work should be put upon me. We do not say that the eight-hour day should not come; but we do say that it will come by natural processes, and that an act of Congress will not help it, but will do great harm to the business of the country.

If you will leave this matter as it has been left during the years that have been referred to, when the hours of work have been brought down to fourteen and from fourteen to nine, it will be a great deal better for the country. That result has been reached not because of legislation by Congress; but it has been reached by natural attrition

and the the natural interworking of the employer and the employee. You may state that it has been stimulated more by the employees than by the employers. That may be so.

This is a thing which you can bring about by natural processes if it is right, and if it is not right you can not keep it if you get it.

I thank the committee for this opportunity of entering a protest against this legislation.

(The committee thereupon adjourned until Friday, March 11, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a m.)

COMMITTEE ON LABOR,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 17, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. B. F. Spalding in the chair.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crosby, we will listen to you now.

STATEMENT OF MR. OLIVER CROSBY, OF ST. PAUL, MINN.

Mr. CROSBY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my residence is in St. Paul, Minn., and the company I represent is the American Hoist and Derrick Company, contractors for the Govern

ment.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Please state your full name, Mr. Crosby. Mr. CROSBY. My name is Oliver Crosby, president of the company I have mentioned. I might say also that I have represented before the Senate committee the Commercial Club of St. Paul, which is composed of business men; as well as the Twin City Foundrymen's Association, and the Twin City Association of Machinists.

The report which I hold in my hand-which is the report of the hearings before the Senate committee-I have perused quite thoroughly. The report of the hearings before the House committee I have not looked into so much, as I did not expect to be here to-day.

I notice on going through these reports that the representatives of the national associations of labor have been before these committees and have occupied quite a great deal of time, and their remarks occupy a large part of the reports. The first half of the report before us is devoted to the examination of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Gompers, who represented the labor elements. The whole substance of all the testimony produced tended almost entirely, I might say, to convincing the committee that a shorter working period is in process of evolution, and that the hours of work have very materially decreased in the past period of years. These gentlemen call your attention to the fact that in the years that have recently passed a laborer's day was from daylight to dark

Mr. GOEBEL. That it was what?

Mr. CROSBY. That the laborer's day was from daylight to dark; that in the natural course of events these hours were shortened to twelve hours and ten hours; and a great many reports are published showing that a large number of manufacturing plants throughout the country have adopted nine hours as the basis of a day's work.

E H -16

There is no difference in opinion on this subject, and I believe the manufacturers all over the country admit and realize that a shorter working period is at hand. Whether this period is to be a shorter week or a shorter day is an unsolved problem.

In many localities I have known of petitions being made to the managers of the factories, asking that the hours of labor be increased for five days in the week, in order that the workmen might have their Saturday half holiday. Chicago has had a Saturday half holiday in many of their machine shops and foundries for a great many years. In St. Paul, Minn., this matter was given consideration some two years ago, and without any petition from the unions the proprietors got together and discussed the matter and agreed that shorter working days were before us, and that they had no desire to oppose them. They did desire, naturally, that a uniform working day should be established, so that competitors in business should be on the same basis. At that time, two years ago, we did not decrease the ten-hour day, but we did cut off Saturday afternoon; and at that time we published notices, and lived up to the agreement, that we would not decrease wages on account of shortening the week.

I think this met with very hearty approval, and for two years I have watched those operations with a great deal of interest; I have talked with a great many men, and the movement is popular.

Now, the solution of the problem as to a day's work I do not pretend to know, and I do not believe anybody else knows that. I believe it is a matter, however, that the business world and the working people are in a position to solve, and I think they are solving it from year to year, and the fact remains that the working day is being shortened. I have only to read from this report to show you the position that Mr. O'Connell takes on this subject. On page 220, Mr. O'Connell says:

The justice of the position of the wage-workers, as regards the reduction in the hours of labor, is so apparent upon every hand that in many instances these large factories concede the reduction of the hours of labor to all their men without question. So that the reduction of hours is not a new thing. It is something that has been going on from year to year, and will go on. As the important methods of production in this country grow and increase, so will the movement toward bringing about better conditions under which the wage-workers are employed.

I certainly agree with those sentiments, and the only disagreement I have with Mr. O'Connell on this subject is as to his methods of getting at a shorter working period, and the length of the period, which he believes should be eight hours. Whether eight hours is a day's work, or whether it is nine hours, or whether it is seven hours, I am not prepared to say, and I do not believe any living man is. In my own opinion the workmen in this world will eventually be working a various number of hours per day. A man who stands at a blacksmith' anvil and swings a heavy hammer all day should not be compelled to work as long as a man who runs a large machine, and whose occupation all day is very largely watching the machine do its work. undertake to hasten this natural course of events, which we all admit is taking place, I believe to be the most dangerous legislation that we can think of. The business world is working at that problem, and there is no difference of opinion on the subject from either side connected with the controversy. It is only a question between us of how it should be done. I believe it would be the candid opinion of busi

To

ness men that it is dangerous and unwise for Congress or legislative bodies to undertake to hurry this matter.

Mr. GOEBEL. How would you bring it about?

Mr. CROSBY. I would bring it about in the same manner that it is being brought about. I have tried to show you how it has been done in the past, and I desire to express my faith that this process is still going on and will continue.

Now, gentlemen, I have occupied a number of positions in this world. I started as a mechanic, as a machinist, and I learned the trade. I worked at that trade and associated with mechanics and machinists and foundrymen, and I know what a day's work is. I know what a ten-hour day is, and I know what a fifteen-hour day is. I have seen the working day decrease, and I expect to see it continue to decrease. I wish to again emphatically say that I believe it to be a dangerous thing for Congress to interfere in this matter. If there were any danger that this movement would not go on, and that the working day would not be decreased, I might change my mind.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to state what your line of business is?

Mr. CROSBY. We are manufacturers of hoisting machinery primarily, and incidentally we contract with the Government. Our contracts with the Government have been with the Army and Navywith the Ordnance Department of the Army-and we furnish gun carriages or mortar carriages. These mortar carriages weigh in the vicinity of 40 tons apiece

Mr. GILBERT. Is there any uniformity as regards the number of hours your employees work in each calendar day? Mr. CROSBY. Yes.

Mr. GILBERT. How many hours do they work?

Mr. CROSBY. Our working week for the majority of the plant is ten hours per day for five days, and Saturday we quit work at 1 o'clock; but the men receive full pay for a full week's work as though they worked sixty hours.

Mr. GILBERT. Nine hours a day, you say?

Mr. CROSBY. No; ten hours a day for five days, and stop Saturday at 1 o'clock.

Mr. GILBERT. At the expiration of the ten hours each day, do all hands quit work, all at once?

Mr. CROSBY. On Saturday?

Mr. GILBERT. No; at the expiration of the ten hours-at the conclusion of each ten hours which you say is the working day, do all hands quit work at once?

Mr. CROSBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILBERT. Does the machinery stop?

Mr. CROSBY. Yes, sir; it does as a rule. Of course there are exceptions to that.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. What per cent of your output does the Government take?

Mr. CROSBY. I have never figured it closely, but roughly estimating it, I should say about 10 per cent of our output is Government work. Mr. GILBERT. There is no difference, is there, between quitting work for the day at the end of eight hours and quitting at the end of ten hours, except that you think eight hours would not be a sufficient length of time for the laborers to be engaged in work?